Cultured Thug Gets Schooled
2021-08-21
uh i'm good i'm pretty good yeah so you
want to introduce yourself tell people
where you like the pluto spectrum and
where people can find you
yeah i'm uh haas from the infrared show
so infrared is basically a platform we
call it marxism leninism and the age of
multi-polarity and the post-covert world
um
i suppose uh we're we're marxist
leninists but we have a very unique uh
perspective
on um the implications of marxism
leninism for the west
um
i'm not sure what else to say
all right thank you um all right so
here's what we're going to do each
person can give an opening statement
about the topic and your stance after
that we will open up the floor make it
one to five minutes uh for those of you
watching uh if you have any questions
make sure to tag politically provoked
who your question is addressed to and we
will
we will end up having a cut off once we
get too many questions once the cutoff
happens we will only be taking super
chats so if you want to make sure your
question gets read try to get it in
there um
on the sooner side after the q a we'll
do closing statements and final thoughts
so um i don't know
how's you want to go start do you want
to start
um sure i guess i'll begin with this
um
to me the question of discussing fascism
uh is a question of history
uh currently i can't really identify a
real
significance of fascism in the 21st
century
uh
beyond certain kinds of um
movements in you know europe or eastern
europe that claim certain historical
continuities and then of course you have
the case of probably the best example
which is ukraine which claims continuity
with uh
ukrainian fascism
but ultimately um
to me historically speaking the
phenomena we call fascism was more or
less
completely absorbed by the american
unipolar
system that
was starting to emerge
following world war ii to uh fascists
were
employed as kind of
mercenaries and hired thugs of american
global imperialism
um and this to me is its only real
lasting significance and legacy
i think the question of communism versus
fascism was a question that was
sorted out in history itself
specifically in the history of the
second world war
um
today
it's my view that while
i don't necessarily
consider everyone who calls himself a
fascist to be on par with the historical
evil that i believe fascism was
i do think it is a deep confusion and
a deep source of
uh
let me what's the word
it's a deep source of uh
misdirection as far as thinking about
and mustering a real critique of 21st
century uh global capitalism is
concerned
thank you
though
all right um
yeah some of the
nazis went over to america they also
went over to soviet russia too to work
in their science as well so everyone who
could get their hands
on a lot of these people did
i would wonder
since you started off about the
contradiction
what is the contradiction you see in
third position to global capitalism
it's the same contradiction i see
anarchists have
religious fundamentalists may have
various other ideologies may have i see
it as a kind of purely negative
stance
i guess you could say more or less it's
what marxists would call false
consciousness
although i don't want to be as crude and
reductive is that it seems like a
a pretty accurate simplification to me
that
while
coming from
maybe authentic uh
discontent with the global order or the
respective orders and establishments of
the respective countries it lacks the
necessary clarity
as to its own real object
um
i see it as a step in the wrong
direction
basically
but what specifically like what so
when we look at the third position
economic platforms when we look at
systems like corporatism
where where does this not address the
bourgeois and international capitalism
uh aren't these methods of socialism
stemming from cynicalism
that address the capitalist system and
put the the capitalists at the boot of
the state i mean isn't this
it's not central planning it's a mixture
of these things
but it's not adherent to capitalism
so i i don't see where is the misstep
and then dealing with uh global
capitalism if we're talking about the
history now and obviously the only two
third position uh governments that came
to power was italy and germany so
with them in particular
what is like what do you view
outside of theory what do you view like
specifically
that they were doing that you say uh you
know what they weren't really taking on
capitalism by doing this
well uh
i agree i i do want to move beyond
theory and go to concrete examples
and i would go even farther and say it's
not even so much about capitalism
specifically as it is about the
alignment of classes and material
interests that existed at that time
and it's very clear to me that the
fascist
regimes
in italy and germany
served the interests of
the military-industrial complex the
network of industrialists and financiers
who
needed war
to prop up their existence as a class
but that's not the reality that's
just because you're building for a
wartime economy it's the same reason why
everyone wants a nuke today it's a
bargaining chip right and in those days
there were no nukes so if you didn't
have a military you really didn't have a
voice on the public stage it's it's not
really that they build
built up their military the soviet union
also built up its military but it's the
purpose for which they built up their
military and the purpose for which they
built their military is to was to embark
on foreign military adventures
um
not because they actually represented
some kind of um
authentic national interests on the part
of the peoples uh over which these
governments were claiming to represent
but
almost in a completely shameless uh
direct way for the
to basically like like pirates to loot
and pillage resources
without any right without even having
being able to establish any right to it
whatsoever like what real claim did
italy have to ethiopia what real claims
did germany have to um
eastern europe now some may make the
argument that germany may claim
continuity
um
from the habsburg empire and the
prussian empire but this isn't true
because uh at least in the case of the
habsburg empire this was a multi-ethnic
empire which was not a nation a nation
state
so the german nation state had no claim
over the territories of czech slovakia
poland et cetera et cetera et etc
um
and also in the case of uh italy um
[Music]
i think
i don't know if it was lenin
who
recalled who stated italy was
a was it the poor man's imperialist
state it was the
the imperialist state that just was kind
of like the sore loser right
to me it's very clear that fascism was
the mode of transition into
the era of global imperialism that the
old liberal democratic states were just
not equipped
for formally
so with germany first i mean i do think
there was calls at least they laid calls
out to the german minorities being
persecuted in both poland and
czechoslovakia uh even some towns where
there are german majorities being
suppressed by the polish in the czechs
so there was a reason that
was directly intertwined with their
nation and i i think mainly
when you're talking about
and and i would argue britain was more
to blame for the start of world war ii
than anyone else but
i think you're talking about too when we
talk about russia we're talking about
the living space now this was something
hitler had preached uh since the early
20s that germany needed more living
space and they're going to take that
living space from the east and russia so
whether that was uh whether you think
it's a right move or a wrong move or
whatever it was tied in with the nation
and it was something that many germans
agreed with i mean once again he said
this very early on and he stuck with it
uh you know until his uh until he
declared war on russia
so it's like they were nationally it
just wasn't war for war's sake there was
a national reason for this and this is
why many of the germans were fanatically
supporting him because
they were a reclaiming lands they had
lost during world war one and two they
were saving german minorities are being
persecuted in these countries
well uh so about the well the
persecution of a what is a minority in a
certain doesn't give you claim over the
whole territory of that
that country you may attempt to use if
what you're saying is true that they
were in fact persecuted you may use your
diplomatic
and um soft power resources to pressure
them in a certain direction but this
does not give you claim over the whole
territory of czech slovakia and poland
if you are making germany a nation state
and saying this is the land of the
germans then those german minorities uh
are free to emigrate to the land of uh
the germans the german people
uh it does not give them claim over
other nation states which are comprised
of other entirely different peoples now
there may be german minorities
in those states and it doesn't that
doesn't entitle them to uh
ownership of the entire state my main
point
about it being outside of the
authentic national interests of the
people within those countries is that
these were military adventures they had
nothing to do with any real
uh genuine historical claims or national
liberation it was a military adventure
concocted by uh
profit hungry industrialists and war
profiteers
in order to sustain a dead system
a system that would otherwise have
collapsed or was on its way to
collapsing
uh classical liberal capitalism
and hitler was promising uh his people
the living space because hitler didn't
want to engage in a land reform within
germany he didn't want to break up
the biggest states of uh the
yonker nobles and aristocrats so he
promised them the land of russia and so
on it's very clear that fascism was a
tool
of the ruling classes of these
respective countries to avoid
the social revolution that was otherwise
inevitable at home
so
first back to poland
um yeah you didn't need to take the
whole country except they were forced
into the war when they wouldn't break on
the dancing
they were forced into a world war
britain has declared war so it's like
there's no choice again
but i don't mean to cut you off the
question though is who forced the
germans to invade czech slovakia
they also had a minority there that's
that's when they first went in there is
to protect their minority there they may
have justified it on that basis but a
minority being persecuted in another
country does again does not give you
claim
to uh nx and conquer and turn this other
country into your living space this
defies uh
the basic uh
stalin said a person who thinks in this
way has the morals of beasts
it defies all human uh convention
that you consider yourself entitled to
the land and the resources of another
country for on what basis i mean you can
say it's to protect the minority why not
evacuate this minority to the german
state the germans already had a state so
why not invite this minority in czech
slovakia to live in germany if they were
so concerned about the status of this
minority it doesn't make any sense
well
i'm glad you said annex shows soft power
there but because the borders of germany
was drawn up by the versailles treaty it
wasn't something
created by germans that's correct but as
stalin noted the germans did not stop
with reclaiming the territories lost
after the versailles treaty they kept
pushing forward more and more for more
that is way outside of the bounds of
any territory that could you know
remotely be
uh argued to be justifiably theirs
this is why stalin said
many are claiming hitler is a
nationalist but he's not a nationalist
if hitler
and the fascists uh
the nazis in germany were nationalists
they would be content with reclaiming
the national historical national
territory of the german people uh
specifically that were lost after
versailles but they didn't do that they
kept pushing for more and more that in
no way could be argued
was rightfully theirs historically
well the outbreak of world war ii was
over the dancing so i mean it was
over
uh disputed territory because of the
borders drawn after versailles that's
what out broke the war then after that
it was world war after that because
czech slovakia as a whole was invaded it
wasn't just that the germans took back
the territory that was lost they wanted
more territory even more than uh what
they had previously lost
yeah and the czechoslovakian government
capitulated to them willingly i mean
it's
so when that's given to you i mean
you'd have to be full turn it down let's
go to
what do you mean they capitulated
willingly
there was no resistance there was no
resistance to it there was no resistance
at all and a lot of people welcomed them
in and there was no resistance on part
of the checks to the german invasion no
major resistance no no no
so but then we could talk about the
eastern bloc and then uh a soviet power
came over there but i i want to get to
this thing about uh fascism being
capitalism and decay this is uh
something i hear often and is usually
from
marxist or whatever shade of marxist are
around today there's so many
um so
let's get to the bottom of this so
how are they keeping
if you have someone if you have a
capitalist elite
that is propping up these organizations
to fight off uh the bolsheviks or
communists german communists at the time
you would imagine that they would have
to be funding this party
from the beginning building it up
but when we see in reality
there was no major funding for the
germans until the 30s early 30s when
they started to gain power then the
businesses started coming in and playing
ball until then they lived off
membership dues they lived off hitler's
selling of mineconf
until then they were banned repeatedly
not allowed to speak imprisoned broken
up so it doesn't fit this narrative that
this group was propped up
by capitalism and mind you the whole
world of capitalism went to war with the
authoritarian states in world war ii
japan italy and germany so it wouldn't
make sense to like hey
capitalism is dying and so we're going
to prop this group up and then we're
going to declare world war on it and
tear it apart in every single country
so it just doesn't fit that especially
when you look at the funding of the
party uh especially at the german party
there was no big business supporting
these people it was off of membership
dues so
i i just don't see how and then when we
talk about when they gain power whether
in a corporatist state in italy or
whether the mixed economy of national
socialist germany
it wasn't the executives that had the
last word it was the state it was the
state okay so two things uh because i
could detect two errors in your argument
there the first one was that
the nazis only received funding and
support from big industries and business
after they got to power if anything it's
almost the opposite uh it was well
before they
got to power in 33 that they acquired
the support of the major industrialists
and so on within germany now it's later
in the 30s i believe that there were
some rifts uh something like that
but what you said is not true um
the second thing is and you know uh
that's not to mention the fact that both
hitler and mussolini were seen as the
heroes of wall street the heroes of
industrialists the world over who envied
them and admired them and
saw them as the saviors of liberal order
and so on and so on western civilization
now in the case of
italy you say that executives did not
have
the last word as far as the matters of
the state were concerned
and
you're correct
um
they didn't and that's because mussolini
explicitly stated that
to paraphrase him the ethical state must
confine itself
to the strictest and sole spheres of
government the police the military and
so on and so on all other spheres must
be remain remain in the hand of private
individuals including a secondary
education this is what mussolini said
um for mussolini the state could not be
an economic state whatsoever maybe he
changed his mind later but
i can pull the quote if you want i think
i have that's fine it took them 10 years
to get the corporatist system
up and going in
italy because unlike
stalin's russia or hitler's germany you
had a parliament in the king there so
it's a little slower for them getting it
started but they ended up getting the
corporatist 33 officially the corporate
estate was in play uh which put the end
nail to liberalism but first going back
to germany being funded i would suggest
two books for people who would like to
believe that uh german big big please
please don't don't show this stuff on
stream i mean what oh why oh hold on i i
fuck me god damn it
what's happening
fuck
what happened
all right i will show it on on screen
because
um for whatever reason german big
business in the writing dude dude
i'm on twitch and you just showed a
fucking swastika
i got banned for that before man okay
well i don't know i've never been on
twitch so all right so i'll make sure
not to show anything controversial uh
german big business and the rise of
hitler
by
uh henry turner jr i would advise people
to check that out can you not show that
shit on stream again so i can start the
stream
yeah yeah i'm not gonna show it already
said i'm not gonna show it
and then this one there's no cover to it
so that's fine
hitler in the rise of wall street also
none of these are favorable books mind
you but it'll break down to when they
started getting the funding and it was
32 that these businesses funded into
them um it is not a reality
by no historical account that's dug into
this whether biographers or whatnot
that they were getting funding from
anyone outside of maybe a thule society
aristocrat here and there can you give
me a second i'm deleting
i'm deleting shit and it's twitch that
crazy really yeah they're that bad man
it's it's it's it's
in italy i agree i think ethiopia was a
waste adventure it was stupid
um
i didn't see anything good with that it
was uh mussolini trying to flex power
his military was very weak as shown in
world war ii
uh so yeah i don't disagree with uh the
whole ethiopian i'm i'm really i didn't
hear anything you said after you showed
that shit i've been i have not heard
anything you've said so i don't know why
you're
i i don't should we keep going i don't
know
i i really don't know if i should keep
going or
i had to delete i i completely deleted
my stream everything
so what do you want to do should we do
this at a different time and i'll be
aware not to
cunt
i need a clear idea of of what the rules
are i need a clear idea i don't know
someone's saying it's in context okay
but
yeah i i don't i need a clear idea no
that's fine i wouldn't risk it if i was
you yeah okay i i got yeah guys if you
guys are watching this now there's not
going to be a stream for the rest of the
night
um
i'll stream tomorrow
yeah
so do you want to end this or
yeah i'm going to go i'm going to go i
don't know i got to
check out what's about to happen
okay
yeah i gotta go
okay so a lot of build up for nothing
all right that was interesting um
oh we're getting stuck in history too i
don't like that but it's just like
that was all right let me see if there's
any questions that i can we can ask you
um
that was wild um
um okay i'm a little thrown off but uh
what is it
these questions like from freaking okay
this is what i was saying to the chat
um anytime like we have like a third
positions or um
or like communist there's all these
freaking names like i can't fucking i
know
q a and it drives me crazy i can't
fucking pronounce it half of the shit
you know what neither can i and i make
videos on the shit so yeah what the hell
um let's see what does this say um
does twitch let you show a hammer and
sickle and make stalin memes gee what a
coincidence interesting it's a tiny
little one too i didn't even re it's
like in the corner i mean i i could
think i could show this by getting
banned here it's in the fucking i didn't
even realize i just wanted to reference
it to people because this mythology of
their capitalism decay is always there
it's because yeah i'll continue
i'll continue i i a lot of people are
confused and they're thinking oh he's he
must be running away from the debate
um when my whole fucking twitch like
this is about the fucking uh
this is about maintaining my fucking
platform you dumb fucks but if you
really want to fucking press me on it
and piss me the fuck off then i will
continue this fucking debate so where
did we last leave off let's go
all right so
we were talking about
how
the way guys it's not streaming on
twitch right now so this is just going
to be on politically provoked
uh
i'll link it on the youtube in the
discord hold on
go ahead where did we last leave off
huh where did we last leave off go ahead
okay we're talking about the uh german
finance industry did not
fund the german workers party
uh during 22 to 32. okay well that's not
true because they received a um
100 000 mark donation from uh
the german industrial group as early as
the 20s
so
the only thing
they have
flick from the aeg
director
20 uh no 32 to 3 no it's
so once again when we look at the
sources
which sources
so
hitler
and the rise of or wall street and the
rise of hitler and
german big business in the rise of
hitler
and this also goes into many biographies
on hitler and all that as well they all
point out
how not only was big industry not
supporting them they were going against
them once again they were banned
numerous times from speaking but what
does that have to do with big industry
that's the government that's
specifically the the german government
was banning the nazis and so on i don't
deny that yeah with who the big industry
is working with at the time
is that liberal democracy
give specific examples
of what
big industry working against the nazis
by the gov the people they supported in
the weimar republic
that was going on the reason is the
reasons the why the nazis were repressed
by the weimar government was an
extension of their function as uh
um enforcing law and order against
hooliganism and against street violence
and all that kind of stuff
where did german industrialists
specifically
um could you remember the weimar
republic was still formally a democracy
so it wasn't an open dictatorship of
industrialists and capitalists in the
same way the nazis were it was still
pretending to be at least pretending to
be a democracy so my question is in what
way were the german capitalists
outside of the repression by the
government against the nazis in what way
were german capitalists
working against the nazis
by not funding them and by funding the
politicians running against them but
they did fund them
they didn't fund them that's once again
it's
there's nowhere there's nowhere in any
of these books any of these things that
any of these historians written about
where they said the industry was funding
them once again i think you just didn't
read enough books then
no i did i did believe me i did and
that's the reality of there well i i
think only this trotsky uh slander of
fascism being capitalism and decay
is something that comes from not being
well deft in it because it is not that
simple and then you you could also say
so if you want to get nuanced so you
talk about germany
and italy but then we also have spain
romania england all these third position
groups none of them propped up by
industry all of them brutally repressed
a lot of them killed in prison cells and
all this
it wasn't an ideology that the
capitalist said oh wow if you're vying
to seize state power you are going to
run afoul with the state that exists but
that doesn't mean you're not being
supported whether uh openly or secretly
by
uh ruling classes and by industrialists
you have to also remember the weimar
republic had the veneer of being a
democracy which means it had to noto to
the very an insurgent german working
class
which it had to pretend it also equally
served as a government
so
i don't see what
how the fascists being repressed or put
in jail is an example of um
the real forces behind
the real forces of the german ruling
class being against them
the real forces being who
the real ruling classes being against
them i don't see how that's an example
of the ruling class as being against
them
you don't see how it's an example with
the real ruling class being against them
no
that they're shut down everywhere that
they're scraping to get funds to get
town halls and all of this
that's
that should be what you mean shut down
everywhere they they are being
persecuted in the way that communists
are being persecuted and anarchists are
being persecuted and there's not really
any much distinction because these are
anti
perceived anti-state actors but behind
the scenes industrialists and
not only german industrialists but
international uh
financial capitalists and industrialists
are supporting these people
after the thirties they started putting
into it after the thirties no not before
the thirties there was not it was
largely built on membership so this will
be in uh unavoidable dispute as to the
actual historical facts at hand
how can we debate if we
do not agree about the actual historical
facts at hand
that's interesting how do we do that
so
i say
that history shows us
that that's not the case it's not
propped up by capitalism and then we
could see so okay if you're just not
going to accept that and then
we will let's go past that to the
governments they did have so if these
were uh capitalist
cronies or whatever we can look at the
systems they did create and we see
in both of these systems they created
something for the working people it
wasn't a profit-driven society in fact
um um adam tooth and his book
uh war of destruction
says that
during the period of 33 to 45
the german banks made less than they
ever did in all of german history
so right but the return the return on um
the returns coming from wall street and
the international banks were really high
because of germany's restarted its uh
military-industrial complex which was
actually the source of its economic
prosperity leading to the war
like it it was a bet and it was a wager
on that war hitler was telling the
german people that it was all going to
pay off because he was going to give
them living space and lebensraum
and the record of history shows whether
hitler was beneficial to working people
or not and he wasn't he led them into a
war
which led to the complete defeat
of germany and the division of germany
so
the record shows that he was not
in the long term
the champion of the german working
classes
because he lost the war he was a
champion of the world because he he
swindled them
uh with his fantasy and his delusion
that he's going to
enslave and conquer and annihilate the
inferior
slavic races and all this bullshit and
that he would give them land to the east
and that this is they're going to have
living room and so on and so on this was
a complete delusion a complete swindle
from the very beginning even before the
war started this was a false promise he
was making he was leading
lamb to the slaughter
so when we look at the
german economy and we talk about workers
programs like joy through strength which
we have not seen to this day where
workers were given subsidized holidays
things like um the volkswagen being
created the people's car
at very cheap radios being vocational
schools now being available to germans
nationalized healthcare right
nationalism this is the fundamental
source of the economic growth that's
able to fund
all of this
is it a domestic
revitalization of industry for the
german people
in the german people's interests to lift
germany up or is it a
arms
manufacturing and weapons manufacturing
type of economy that is oriented toward
invading other countries and engaging in
war you can only measure the success of
such a country on the basis of
benefiting its own people
when the very source of the economic
growth lies in um
uh unleashing the forces of production
within
and no fascist government has ever been
able to accomplish such a thing all they
can do
is turn their economies into appendages
of the military-industrial complex for
purposes of invading other countries
because they're unwilling to engage in
the necessary land reform within to
actually give their people a slice of
the pie
so they promise them they'll have pie
from
ethiopia or from poland or eastern
europe
well with ethiopia it's you're talking
at the time of colonialism so they
viewed misguided or not it was that era
that they viewed as long as england and
britain look even by the standard of
colonialism at the time
at the time that italy invaded ethiopia
colonialism was largely a vestigial
system the way in which italy the
brutality with which italy the barbarism
with which italy
randomly invaded ethiopia having zero
continuity zero historical claim
no business do it whatsoever it was a
complete uh
it was a spectacle
uh
that was painted with blood and gore and
uh
and violence from where coming from
where and there hadn't there had never
been anything seen like that
uh
in the 1930s before of just randomly
invading a country
engaging in this brutal war
i mean you you saw things like this in
the early 20th century and in the uh
19th century but that era was on its way
out by this time
so it's almost like italy
represented an attempt to preserve
uh
colonialism
the 19th century colonialism
and the 19th century liberal capitalism
the two were inexorably entwined when it
was on its way out historically it's
almost like fascism was a reaction
uh to the forces in march of history
actually it didn't and then the
british and french powers chopped up the
middle east
they so the colonialism did not end or
italy wasn't the last thing of it but
right but
once again i i don't like i'm not
defending okay so so which country in
the 1930s engaged in a comparable uh
something comparable to italy's invasion
of ethiopia
russia and finland
no right first of all uh
even if you think russia invaded because
it fabricated
um the uh
the violation of the treaty it had with
finland
it's not comparable
uh because russia at least was
at least russia was lying about it and
saying oh we're just doing it because
they
violated the treaty but moreover here's
what's even worse
even if you put this kind of formalistic
argument aside
russia was taking back territory lost
uh
lost uh after the russian civil war for
purposes of
protecting its borders because the finns
were not going to work with
the soviet union
to prevent
their country being used as a launching
pad for the germans
so they invaded finland not because they
had some kind of adventuristic claim to
finland and you know we're the roman
empire this is our conquerors no they
invaded finland to protect themselves
ultimately for the purposes of
self-defense because the finnish
government was secretly getting close
with the germans
so it's completely inc and moreover
finland is on the border of russia
i mean it's complete it's nothing like
italy invading ethiopia there's no
comparison
okay it's an invasion but okay they
that's fine ethiopia wasn't a good move
once again so i it's not even i'm just
trying to say why is it that we don't
see fascist countries
that simply uplift their own people why
must they engage in
uh blanket aggression against others
well they did uplift their own people
i'm saying they don't just
they don't just uplift their own people
they like china does now for example
china doesn't invade anyone china just
uplifts its own people and focuses on
internal development
the linchpin of china's economy does not
rest upon ultimately
reacquiring foreign colonies and
randomly invading countries and getting
more living space
china's economy is geared toward the
development of the chinese people why is
it that we and even the soviet union uh
during the soviet union's
industrialization the linchpin the
driving force of its economy lies in the
development of the productive forces
it's not the linchpin of the economy
doesn't is not some kind of gamble or
gambit to reclaim some former lost
colonial prestige
uh
or something like that
yeah well we're not in the age of
colonialism outside of western imperial
colonialism we're not in the age of that
so china
uh has no need to do that it would only
hurt them in the end to do that today
but right and they were they were very
involved
we're not in an age of colonialism per
se but we're still very much in an age
of wars
yes and
i don't see what context fascism has in
the 21st century except being the last
resort of western liberalism
ultimately
which must may ultimately gear itself
toward uh
more wars of aggression
against countries like russia and china
and others
which threatened the previous which
threatened the previous uh unipolar
order i think fascism if fascism will
emerge today it will be in the form of
resistance against the multi-polar world
order
as far as what um
nationalism
no uh
as far as defending
the
current
imperial status of western europe and
america which are on their way to uh
losing this status
but see you were just saying that with
world war ii that the liberals are
losing their status but the liberals are
more powerful than ever with the fall of
fascism so it's not like that well the
thing was is that fascism was absorbed
as the higher thug of
the liberal order after world war ii and
you can say that all this was just the
taking scientists but it wasn't just
taking scientists the nazi propagandists
were taken the nazi etiologists were
taken and absorbed
uh they were foundational for nato the
operation gladio if the former fascists
in italy were operationalized and
mobilized by nato
i mean they were the hired thug of
uh
american imperialism during the cold war
they were used as mercenaries in
africa and in other hot cold war hot
spots as anti-communist uh you know
fighters so
i don't see how uh
and a lot of them are also killed
executed so i don't see how that ties in
with fascism when you what do you mean
executed like i mean after nuremberg
trials or what are you talking about
nuremberg trials and germany
yeah yeah so that's so it's not like
it's saying hey
fascist you protect liberalism
germany which country had more
sitting officials and government
officials and judges and so on and so on
who were former
high-ranking members of the nazi party
i would assume west germany of course
um well they didn't lock up yeah they
didn't lock up every single nazi but
they did
kill a lot and it wasn't so when you
talk about the philosophy
of the belief of the
ideology it's anti-liberal it's nothing
that supports uh the liberal frame once
again this is why liberalism went to war
with the authoritarian third position
countries but the the problem is that
here's the issue
it wasn't liberalism that went to war
liberalism was undergoing a profound
transformation at this time the fascists
claimed that they were against
liberalism
but you have to ask in what sense were
they against liberalism was this against
the essence of liberalism the sacred
individual of classical modernity
uh the individual rights private
property um
free trade all this kind of stuff were
they against this specific uh liberalism
or were they only against the bad
symptoms of liberalism which was uh the
widespread cultural uh breakdown
uh this you know
unemployment crisis economic crisis they
were only against the bad aspects of
liberalism but at its essence they were
champions of liberalism
they were liberals like the roman empire
was roman i mean it was maybe no longer
the roman republic
but it's still
coming from the same foundation
no it's all foundations they were
against liberalism they were collective
society they were against uh all of the
enlightenment mussolini himself i can
give you a quote maybe you will say it's
out of context but i i am open for you
to give me the the context but he go he
says
that we are against the collectivistic
state
uh
so yeah
central planning he's against
it
it wasn't simply um
central planning let me pull it up right
here yeah here it is
uh
what year is this from
i'll get the exact year in a second
secondary
okay here we are
um
this was
this was uh
1920 june 1921 mussolini says
the state must have a police a judiciary
an army and a foreign policy all other
things and i do not exclude secondary
education must go back to the private
activity of individuals if one wants to
save the state the collectivist state
must be abolished so he's not critiquing
bolshevism he's critiquing the current
italian state
we're being too collectivistic he's
saying this
state is too collectivistic we have to
privatize uh
so from 1920
1921 yeah yeah so before he's in power
or anything else
when he was in power they created the
collectivist economy they created the
corporatist economy well it's not true
because mussolini did in fact
privatize
these various industries the railways
were privatized insurance was privatized
um
all manner of industries and so on were
given back to the industrialists
in order to create a base of support
among them
now i won't deny that in the 30s and
later on the state became a more kind of
central organ to coordinate the
interests of these various
industrialists but the state was still
the hired thug of the italian uh ruling
class
okay uh
not at all once again the state ruled
over the industries i'm just going to
since you brought up a quote i'm just
going to read a little bit from
mussolini's italy here
the corporate state was also the
quintessential coincidence of
totalitarianism by the end of 1933 with
the framing of the new law on
corporations to be promoted on 5th
february 1934 an observer could no
longer find any political economic or
cultural activity which the party did
not back encourage and control
directing to the farthest sectors of
italian life the hot breath of the
fascist spirit
and it it go it goes on and on about the
different parts of the economy and how
they put all the corporations into the
corporate listen this is
good poetry but it doesn't reflect the
real history
it doesn't reflect the reality
so do you deny the private the
privatizations i just mentioned uh that
happened
after mussolini
so third position is believed in class
collaboration much like what's going on
in china today no no
firstly uh
you can say class collaboration this or
that but my question is more specific
industries
that were
uh
public before
publicly given a degree of public
ownership before
in a state that was not a socialist
state
it was a capitalist state
these were given to industrialists and
privatized
under mussolini
what does that have to do with uh i get
it they they weren't they didn't want
the soviet model where
central planning and they have central
planning i understand
but it's they went it's not just that
you know and moreover in the case of
china china rejects soviet central
planning but china's
special economy
uh
emerges from a strong foundation of uh
an already existent national industrial
system created by central planning a
unique relationship
between the state and the economy that
did not go away with central planning
and moreover most decisively here's
really the linchpin a land reform which
gave chinese people a piece of the pie
none of those things
were the premise of fascism fascism
simply took the old
economy uh and created itself
the fascist party in the government as a
hired thug of one specific class
uh in this economy it did not it
revamped the whole economy and in china
wait
how did it revamp the whole economy
well shit germany let's go to land
reforms let's go to the progressive tax
they put on the rich
to where they're paying up to 39
where workers are only paying up to five
percent of taxes i mean this isn't
something that's
the rich wanted to happen there um in
china as well it wasn't it wasn't
central planning that led them to where
they are it's getting off central
planning that led them to where they are
no it's
well
it's both
without the national industrial system
created by central planning which to
this day serves as the very premise of
socialism with chinese characteristics
deng xiaoping did not revert to the
order that existed before
soviet-style central planning he took
soviet-style central planning as the
very premise of his reforms which means
the for example the wealthy chinese um
[Music]
i don't like to call this but let's say
just call them capitalists right
they were
not the previous chinese uh ruling class
they were
com they were peasants who you know did
well and it was coming there was a
complete already a complete uh social
transformation that happened beforehand
and then deng xiaoping took this as the
premise of his reforms
uh so it's a completely different
situation maybe a different situation
but it came out to the same result of
corporate corporatization of business
and then a mixture of private and state
overseeing government i mean that's
literally what
you're not understanding this the people
who got rich in china the businesses
that emerged the every single company
that has emerged in china after deng
xiaoping's reforms
has emerged owes its existence to an
already existing relationship between
the state and the economy whereas in the
case of italy all of these businesses
and
industries you're talking about existed
before fascism
so this is the difference
it's the difference but the result is
the same no it's not
it's not the same because
in the case of china they weren't simply
putting a patch on a dead system and uh
putting a
a band-aid on it it was a completely new
system that emerged after deng
xiaoping's
reforms a completely new one
and
in contrast to um
fascism there is no aspect of economic
life in china that is not somehow
owing its premises and its existence
to the state
uh
intervention into the economy
except
everyone after mao viewed that the
community communizing a farm of
agriculture and central planning as a
huge mistake no you're not listening
no i understand the starting point is
that because china had the relation with
the state in the economy that they were
building off that foundation while it's
it's not countries it's not just that
either it's that
china's economy is
already premised by the state
it's not just that you know we're not
talking about the mao era soviet style
industrialism or mao's people's communes
after the great leap forward
chinese theorists don't actually really
dichotomize
that from socials and chinese characters
as much as they historicize it like yes
this was necessary at the time to create
the premises
of a national industrial system and then
this stage was completed and now we're
in a different stage of socialist
development
so they don't really say like one is
better than the other as much as
one is suited to a different time period
than the other
from everything i've seen they've
definitely said there was a failure in
uh central i think stalin realized this
and everyone realizes that you it's too
bureaucratic you can't essentially plan
from uh
everything no no they're there the third
position is but let me remember
that's not true there was a debate
toward the end of mao's life and after
mao's death
um about the future of china's economy
and there was a debate about whether the
current soviet-style system can be
preserved but the question of its
sweeping success and being able to lay
to like provide a base level of
industrialization
uh
base level modernization and so on and
so on the success of that was never
disputed
the success that it came from central
planning yeah it was never disputed
yeah it seems to be disputed from what
i've been seeing um
i'll refer to you to this chinese
economist um
i'm talking about the official chinese
communist party sources that they have
like the party's own sources it's
official well yeah you're not they're
not going to bad mouth mao just like
stalin wasn't going to bad mouth or no
was very open about saying he thought
mao was a 70 30 case he was 30 bad and
70 good so they're not afraid to
critique mao they're not afraid to
critique what they consider like the
excesses of the great leap forward and
the cultural revolution they do that all
the time
um
so but back to the state being the
foundation because they had that and
they can build off of that
the third position governments had to
create that state because that state
didn't exist like you said it was a
liberal state that exists right but so
they had to manifest that state into
reality without having uh everything the
bolsheviks and the chinese went through
with the mass revolutions uh famines and
all these things as a matter of fact
they never they created no such state
uh the state that you're talking about
was the cherry on top of a existing uh
existing
existing uh economy an existing system
it was a cherry on top
in the case of the russia and china they
actually did build a state from scratch
and moreover lay the foundations of a
modern state
from scratch they built all the
institutions from scratch
more or less
they
were com they were completely engaged in
a leveling of the economy in order to
establish a newfound relationship
between the state and the economy and
this never happened in the fascist
countries now of course famines and all
these things happened in china and the
soviet union but that's because
they had to create an independent basis
for the modernization for
industrialization and modernization and
when you're not
uh
you know pillaging uh
countries in africa and foreign
countries for your resources to get the
necessary surpluses of production
to engage in industrialization you have
to modernize agriculture
so that the surpluses of both labor and
agricultural produce can go toward
industrialization that's why china and
the soviet union
weren't out here in you know in living
space and colonizing and invading other
people and the other alternative of
course is um
yeah taking advantage of the
differentials in the concentration of
capital that are already established so
getting foreign
uh
foreign investments from america and
britain and other international uh
capitalists
which they weren't able to do so
who was
unavoidable who wasn't able to do oh you
talked about that yeah okay yeah the
famines
um
there's people that argue is because of
essential planning that some of those
famines were induced uh but as far as
the cherry on top of the state it was
not a cherry on top of state it was a
revamping of state itself so in
liberalism we have a weak state right
just like we do today it's strong i get
it but it's a weak state there's no
foundation to it uh there's no component
of it creates and keeps naturally so but
they created these things so
i think we're getting lost in the weeds
of like oh is this a state or a cherry
on top do they do something
it's so i'll ask you a question
oftentimes away a
state actually not oftentimes the way a
state cements a material foundation for
its existence
is land reform it distributes parcels of
land or some other kind of thing to the
people so that a new kind of social
contract emerges the people's way of
life becomes inexorably tied to the
state this is true not even just for
capitalism for all history right going
back
even to the greeks and whatever you want
the ottomans whatever you want this is
how states acquire material foundation
how did
fascist italy and germany
acquire a material foundation for their
state
well through land reform as well
which land reform are you referring to
agriculture agriculture and industry as
well the same thing no no
let's not brush over this topic it's
important
which land reforms were implemented in
italy and germany respectively
so they had collective farming in
germany
it wasn't communal but it was collective
it was all under an agency that would
uh
plan essentially what needed to be
produced uh they had land beautification
projects where they'd go have youth help
build up farms so they could have more
people growing in those farms working
without putting any money in through the
state or anything or the peasants money
into it because they had these programs
that would go there and beautify the
land and build them up and do that and
same with italy they a part of the
function of the corporatist system that
was
that is very good i think is they're
able to take work and transport it
wherever transport workers thousands of
workers to towns to build those towns up
to aggregate the land and then move on
to the next one and try to build that up
as well so they were doing yeah what
you're saying is is not true the
furthest extent of germany's land reform
uh was changes in the hereditary the
laws about the
inheritance of uh
farmland existing for the existing
peasants
as far as italy is concerned i'm not
aware of any major redistribution of
land or division of landed estates in
italy at all
um they didn't redistribute land yeah
they didn't that's what land reform
means land reform means you give people
land who didn't have land before
yeah no they built the people already
had so that's another thing there wasn't
this
uh homelessness or people without land
as there was in under the tsars in
russia and whatever was going on in
china before mao
so it's totally different landscape
you're talking even though italy was not
industrialized
it had no need to make communal farms
and to
give land i mean you say they give land
to them but they're communal farms
i'm not talking about communal farms
communal farms for example
so during the russian land reform after
the bolshevik seized power
um
the stolipin reforms under the tsar were
reversed
and land was given to peasants it was
their land they owned it
as opposed to the land owners the
nobility they took it from the nobility
gave it to the peasants
then a decade later
the collectivization began of the
creation of the coke not
sorry coal coasters preceded that
the widespread
establishment of the cold causes started
a decade later so those are two
different things okay
the first thing did not happen in
italy or germany there was no
land reform and there was no equivalent
to a land reform where the people were
actually being given
some kind of
interest
in the state in the economy they were
not given any kind of piece of the pie
they weren't given any uh
should i say
uh what's the word they weren't given a
security is that the word they weren't
given anything like that
they had that because they could own
private property the citizens they could
but what property did they end up owning
whatever plot they lived on i mean but
the majority of german this is not true
for a majority of german people they had
nothing
they had nothing at the time of weimar
yes but that quickly started started
changing after weimar and when they were
being promised
that they would be given land
uh
after it was stolen
from the sub
inferior slavic peoples quoting the
nazis that's what they were that's what
it all was about they're saying oh we'll
give you land but it's going to be to
the east
it's not going to be in germany because
we don't want to upset
the
land the yonkers and the you know the
monopolists that are here
uh so we'll promise you this land uh
elsewhere that's what happened
no what happened well it wasn't because
of the yonkers what happened was they
didn't believe
right or not they didn't believe
that there was enough land there to have
that kind of reform there was there
there actually was
that's fine i'm just saying what's like
it's cynical
of course of course they understand
there's enough land they just don't want
to um
they just want to serve the interests of
the existing monopolists and landed
proprietors
uh and that's that it's not that they
they you know we're just mistaken and oh
we didn't we
we did incorrect measurements or
something no they knew they just
uh wanted to serve the interests of the
german ruling classes
while at the same time keeping the
interests of the german people at bay in
the form of whipping them into a frenzy
for war
it would
well that's such a simplification that's
such a
gross simplification of that it's not
about whipping the germans in the frame
it wasn't just
this narrative of just a war economy all
they're expecting is war that's all the
germans were promised was war it was
none of that they built the workers up
themselves they were liv once again when
we talk about it the reason there was a
rise in the german economy is almost
entirely entirely attributable
to re-propping up the
military-industrial complex it is almost
all of the economic gains in germany are
almost all
if not all blank
pointed period
attributed to that fact it was because
they were making and
just like for example if you build
infrastructure in your country
it's a debt right you're pouring a lot
of investment but that creates jobs it
creates capital it creates
some kind of uh life for the economy
and this is what the germans were doing
for the arms industry in the military
industrial complex so yes it was a war
economy it was all geared towards war
it was not geared toward it was geared
towards building germany up as well uh
not not just towards but so
let's pass this though let's not brush
past this so we're talking about
when we talk about nationalized
healthcare nationalized education worker
retreats we're talking about these
aren't things where you're like we're
just going to please these big capitals
when you talk about taxing the
capitalist uh more than anyone else a
progressive tax when we're talking about
this it is not serving the elite this is
not this narrative being
look like hitler would serve so let's
let's be clear about this is it serving
the individual interests of each and
every one of these elites of course not
but is it the question is is it serving
their collective interests and i would
say yes it is
because the they were unwilling
to engage in a uh
social confrontation at home
of course they recognized the need
i mean listen it's in
they were very open about this like
listen you german capitalists if you
don't listen to us
the workers led by the bolsheviks or
whatever are gonna come and get your ass
so you better listen to us because we're
saving you that was what they were
telling them you know if you don't
listen to us you're gonna face our boot
that's that's what happened when they no
but primarily they were saying it's
either us or the asiatic bolshevism you
make it's a good sales pitch it's a good
sales pitch of course of course it is
and it was also uh arguably true
it's not that's the thing though it's
not arguably true yeah when you put
industry under the boot of the state of
the heel of the state well i'll go back
to china it's the same thing china
evolved to they eventually came to this
understanding that you have to have this
mixture but you have to have a strong
state so why doesn't china need
why isn't the linchpin of china's
economy a war economy why does it
successfully engage in
the internal development of china and
the chinese people because they joined
the world trade organization and they've
been skyrocketing since then uh they're
building up a military don't doubt that
they aren't they're building up a strong
military yeah but that's not the
linchpin of their economy
no the world trade organization is not
the linchpin and neither is the military
it's china's infrastructure which is
built on the basis of debt that is later
um
paid off in the long term and its
construction infrastructure those are
the things that are the real linchpin of
the chinese economy
yeah it was opening up the foreign
investment as
driving or opening driving china okay
let's be clear opening up to foreign
investment is a lot is what allowed for
the transfers very rapid transfers in
the concentration of capital to take
place
and to build up chinese industry so yes
that was an important premise but as far
as china's the linchpin of what drives
china's economy
it's not enough to have foreign
investment you can have money but what
are you going to do with that money it's
capitalism 101 right the linchpin of
china's economy
lies in a combination especially in the
g era of infrastructure construction
uh and debt based works
instead of
they
instead of just taking out debt they do
something with it it's economy is based
not in abstraction financial abstraction
but in real building real things real
intangible things which eventually pay
for themselves so that's the actual
linchpin of the chinese economy now the
reason that chinese economy is different
from
[Music]
fascism
is because again
all of those businesses and industries
which emerged in china they owe their
existence to china's socialist system
the industries that exist under fascism
existed before some kind of the fascists
took over they inherited fascism merely
inherited
the class antagonism of liberalism and
it merely
it merely displaced
the coordinates of being able to wage
this class struggle
but in the case of china
what do you mean
coordinates
uh it's for example it's displaced
the ability for the class struggle to be
waged
as it had before
yes
yeah we don't agree with having our
classes fight each other that's once
again class collaboration but no so well
but but
i will insist on something
you notice the key word is displace it
still had to displace the class struggle
it didn't just get rid of it because
they don't agree with it they had to
displace it onto foreign adventures and
foreign wars
that's the important thing
before the foreign adventures in foreign
wars right yeah before then but from 33
to 38
they were doing that they got rid of the
class antagonism there's no nationalize
the people listen
classes were brought together once again
if your health care is paid for
if you're edu the son if you're educated
you're a worker and you you can't afford
to go to the best university and now you
can you start getting rid of some of
these antagonisms between the classes
because i think you invaded ethiopia in
35 so it's not like 30 what do you say
33 to 38. i'm talking about germany oh
okay you're talking about yourself
yeah well
here's what i'm trying to say though i
agree the general standard of living for
germans including german workers rose
during this period you're talking about
but the only reason it did is because
it was a bet it was a gambit and that
was based in the military industrial
complex you cannot say the class
struggle has been eliminated until this
bet you're making it proves itself
proves its outcome because the outcome
is not proven yet
so it's a wager we've never seen it's
not that the class struggle was
eliminated it's that it lied in waiting
we were gonna see if hitler's promises
pay off or not and
they obviously didn't
yeah well i think this is another
misnomer but this will be
i don't even know what to argue this
that if germany did not go to war it
would crumble i i think that's a total
misnomer because as they're building up
their infrastructure in their industry
as they were back in you know work yeah
had germany not gone to war
um the german state would have been
overthrown absolutely there is no doubt
about that i i said it would have been
stronger than ever but so you started
this off saying but hold on why is there
not a single example of a fascist state
that doesn't have to go to war there's
not a single example in history
uh there's only been like technically
two and they were wrapped up in world
war ii why is that
in destroyed uh because it is something
that anytime there's anything
authoritarian uh that pops up in any
other country they become the enemy of
liberal democracy sure but they're
whether you call something fascist or
third position or you know collective
but national
idealistic whatever you call it when it
pops up in any other country uh it's
either going to go on the list of evil
or it's going to be subverted and taken
down and just when countries resist the
american created global system uh yes
they are i agree but
my wider point i'll basically break it
down like this let's just use common
sense
right
now on paper what the fascists say or
what fascists today will say doesn't
sound so bad right oh it's just like
china
when they say for example let's have
class collaboration we're not we're for
private property we're not like the
communist one eliminated
but the kicker is
there are
there is a specific ruling class in
power now like specific faces right
uh specific companies specific
businesses and these people
have an identifiable interest
these are the people in power now is
what i'm talking about right in china
are you talking about no no in the west
okay
there it's not an abstraction of the
capitals class these are people in power
right
what you are saying is you are uh
saying that you are not going to pose a
threat to them in their interests
you're not going to seize their assets
their property
and redistribute it you're not going to
create a land reform you're not going to
unleash the productive forces and
outmode the monopolies that exist now
you're going to work with them now
capitalists in the abstract
doesn't sound bad
but
there are capitalists did the real
capitals that exist now
are not abstract and they an
identifiable interest
the reason there's only been two fascist
countries whatever you're talking about
is because if you have enough power
to overthrow the state and to seize
power
okay
and you're doing this in a way that
implies the fundamental transformation
of society and the economy whatever
and the overthrow of the powers that be
you may as well be a communist and just
have land reform why not like why must
you serve the same ruling classes that
prop up the current order you claim to
be against and the answer to this is
i wouldn't i don't think this is the
case for you i think you genuinely do
people like you who call themselves
fascists you genuinely do have
anti-establishment sentiment however
much i disagree with it
with its form
you still have that right
but real fascists historically did not
have this they worked with the status
quo with the establishment with the
capitalists that did exist
at the time
and that's why that just the whole basis
of their doctrinaire differences with
mar you know like in abstract it's not
so bad okay you're not against private
property you're not against um
a capitalist it's fine but what does
that mean concretely as far as the
existing situation is concerned and
historically it meant
fascists were the hired thugs of a
decaying establishment that's why you
will notice the continuity the only real
examples of continuity with those two
fascist governments we can find where
there's like legit connections are for
example right-wing dictatorships in
south america in africa in um
asia and elsewhere
in
in today's uh
ukraine with ukraine today you find
here you find examples of real
continuity with historical fascism and
it's all the same thing it's always the
bankrupt uh ruling class
the establishment now led by american
imperialism
uh
safeguarding and defending its interests
from certain
collapse
so that's not the reality though of
italy or another corporate state or
germany it's not working with
capitalists capitalist or industry let's
say in industrial capitalist right let's
stay specific on that because the
finance capitalist wasn't even there um
because
they had to adhere to hitler they had to
adhere to the state whatever he said i
won done they had to do so there is no
speaking there is no we're working
together there is you're working for the
state and this is what we need to be
done right
so you said like there's no
um
like for 21st century fascism what does
it even mean it's not around what does
communism mean in the 21st century would
you say well that's a good question i
think in america and in the west
unfortunately because of the influence
of america and american universities
communism has come to mean something
entirely different than what it means
for the world most of the world
currently that is outside of the west
um
but today i think i could broadly say
that
communism more or less means learning
from the example of china communism
means uh today
a fundamental
a whole a gap in our history
um
that needs to be confronted in addition
to the present state of things and
current affairs you have the whole
former soviet bloc
eastern europe they have not reconciled
with their past it remains uh unfinished
history
and this is true for elsewhere
so today
communism is an open question
it's the difference with fascism i think
there is no
i communism is an opportunity
to engage in a real
social question in a real question of
our common economic reality without
having to make any commitments to any
existing
private
uh
established interest
and for that reason alone
today in the 21st century
communism
must mean
a completely anti-establishment position
now granted
most commun americanized communists this
is not just true for america now because
of american influence it's spreading to
western europe
they are uh
they serve american imperialism the
american establishment and the
respective establishments of their
countries no doubt about that
but
so if yeah if communism is is
once again yeah it's hard to find
any real communist that's not a liberal
right that's kind of what it's been
reduced to in america but but if you
engage with china that's communism
that's the reality though if that's the
reality
right but only in the west separate what
separates
people like you and myself if we're both
anti-establishment if we're both
collectivists we have that we have a
differing view of history that's it what
does that mean today though what does
that mean today no should we fight about
oh i really don't know listen i i don't
think we should be uh political enemies
i don't consider you a political enemy
but i have people
i have ideological
uh historical disagreement with you
i think the worker cares about that if
materialism or anti-materialism
no no but but i still think uh this is
about what will ultimately prove to be
most successful
in creating an authentic
anti-establishment movement so i think
yeah have you seen
uh the platform that myself and other
people are gonna be running on in a few
years
new frontier look i have look have you
seen the platform no no i haven't i'll
grant it i haven't but look i'm a
marxist leninist i have seen
dozens of good platforms
from
no but people actually like going to run
on like it's not about i understand i
understand i've seen marxist lenders who
are running on great great platforms but
ultimately politics has a material
reality and it's not voluntary it's
based in concrete material
realities
so to me for example i look at phenomena
like the people's party
third party initiatives that i think
are grounded in current reality and i
think this is the site of uh the future
i think both bernie sanders
a third party yeah third party in
america yeah
i disagree with that i i think that's
i think third parties in this country
are impossible uh werner sumbart
uh wrote this book in the early 1900s
why there is no socialism in the united
states
and part of it and part of it was uh
how it's impossible to get a socialist
movement this is impossible to have a
third party in america just because of
how it's set up um so i say vehicles
exist
that we could still use democrat
republican it doesn't matter if you're
that or not but that vehicle's there and
one benefit to our country uh in the
hindrance as well is a personality or a
person can bring forth a whole new idea
bernie sanders he's a parliamentary
socialist fine you know i i don't view
him as like a real fighter socialism but
you see
um the energy behind him and someone
like trump he wasn't a true populist but
you saw that early energy behind it yeah
but we see there's a crowd there the
issue the issue is that america's
two-party system has not always existed
there has been shifts historically that
changed but not for a long time right
not for a long time not in any of our
lives i i am seeing now with a
fundamental political realignment that's
happening in this country
now is the time that the two-party
system is gonna break down
and i don't know how it's gonna break
down but there's too much a
contradiction of interest within both
parties
for the current uh set up to be
sustained
so i i guess time will tell i mean so
do you wait for that to fall apart or do
you take action to try to get your voice
out there well i i argue with again i'm
a marxist lender so you can imagine how
much times i have to argue with marxist
leninist volunteers who tell me why
don't you not take action and all this
kind of stuff and i'll tell them the
same thing uh
it's not simply that i'm waiting it's
that i'm trying to first and foremost
have a clear grasp of reality
establish a clear grasp of reality
scientific grasp
of reality
is that is everything uh historical
materialism are you gonna gauge
everything through those lens or
no it's not just a matter of
contemplation but you do need to have a
clear understanding of the current
situation to know precisely where to
intervene so me i talk about the
people's party i talk about third
parties
ultimately what can i do but talk to my
audience like i cannot what am i going
to do run outside and you know i've been
critiqued but they say why don't you go
march with red flags and a mao hat or
something outside
why it's all information anyway it's all
this stuff is information it's media
it's to broadcast yourself to others in
some kind of way and i'm doing that in a
way more effective way than larping in
the street could ever possibly
accomplished
so what would it
i guess i'm confused i understand what
you're saying but i i do view like
political action like there has to come
a time where you put your
politics out there this look this is why
we stalinists we marxist leninists
we say fascists and the ultra leftists
are two sides of the same coin you both
have
the same volunteeristic
almost anarch anarchistic view of uh
political action
how what do you mean by that
this idea that there is a
some kind of voluntary political act
we do as individuals that is decisive
and the truth is is that politics uh
is something super individual it's
concrete and there is no
real one political action politics is a
combination of information media
and um organization the rest
no no the
the actions that happen like for example
storming the winter palace
these are incidental
after effects the only site at which a
political actor can intervene
is information
and organization
almost the organization thereof
but as far as
action is concerned
you have no control over that
people will act as they act
um
there's no way to control that people
act as they act uh
i mean like what is really for example
let me ask you in this day and age what
is a political action in this day and
age what would be a political action
i would say taking your policies to the
people and putting it on the public
stage
more than information because like you
said we can do information online and
and spread information like that
this is
uh when you're talking to the people
you're bringing them to you you're
bringing them to an idea you're bringing
them to support what difference does it
make if you do that online or in person
because in person it's going to have
more effect than online online uh look
you had to shut your uh stream down
because i showed a book cover right it's
like that's where we're at online now
yeah but here's here's the thing online
is how you have to begin i agree
eventually there comes to a point where
people need to be on the ground with
communities and talking to people but
you have to begin online
because if you begin let's say in this
or that community how will the word
spread that you even exist you're just
going to be stuck in that
local uh context
so
but see it's more than just like local
organizing right because people have
done this i mean the same old methods
have been done over and over or to death
and have gotten nowhere so how do you
reach those people so hypothetically
if i run for a democratic congress spot
yeah then i can get on some radio shows
i can finally get on stage for debate
and then oh my god he's a fat oh my god
i can't believe it and it's not like
we're running as fast but my history all
you know the videos are made all that
will come down right so you get
attention like that by putting yourself
out there putting the message out
they're taking that risk you know listen
that all of that is media all of what
you just mentioned is the media and
information
it's the only reason it would why would
you have to run on the democrat party
and not a third party because you run as
a democrat you'll get more attention
yeah and it's harder to get a third
party off the ground you have to have a
certain amount of signatures and all
that no i i i i'm just trying to say
political action is a combination of
information and organization
uh there is no like uh mythical act you
do like
as far as politics is concerned
i would
we have what you mean by we have maos
here on the left unfortunately which i
am a part we have maoists who march on
the streets with
flags and they have the quotations and
they're dressing up and they really
believe they're engaging in a political
action but what they're doing is
engaging in a certain information
uh
broadcast of making themselves look
foolish right but they think this is the
real political action we're taking to
the streets and we're
it's no there's no such action
entailed in this
um
yeah it's larping for the most part yeah
playing dress up and yeah but that's
what i'm saying that's not the political
action
that's wasted been there done that
everyone's still kind of doing that
method i think the third party goes out
that way too
that's why i think once again we're in a
country where personalities or single
people can push forth a whole idea so to
me it seems well which which personality
would you have in mind to be pushing
this i'm just saying personalities
period that's aoc ilhar oman why don't
these people become known names now
because they came with this personality
put this message out there that they
don't follow through with but still put
this message out there and got support
from that well i think the great
american can do that the great
revolutionaries and leaders in history
i agree
in a populist movement there will be
strong personalities inevitably
but
the authentic revolutionaries of history
uh
they had hidden personalities they had
pseudonyms they were just known
implicitly
and it wasn't the force of their
personality but the force of their ideas
that spread
uh it wasn't just the force of their
ideas either it was the force of their
effectiveness in organizing their
effectiveness
in operationalizing their parties and
their movements
and so and that can't be done with
people running on
you know the democratic platform
absolutely not bernie sanders and trump
did that just you're right and and
here's my question to you what happened
to them
well bernie obviously uh cucked out for
the dnc what listen
i agree bernie did cuck out but he had
to bernie had two options
leave the democratic party or start a
third party
he could have raised the ruckus he could
he he didn't have to support hillary it
would be like a form of wrecking of the
his part which i would have supported
mike yeah i mean if he's a soldier
but it would have ultimately led to his
objection and his force to form a third
party
we know now i mean look
look at aoc
what happened to her
what do you mean what happened to aoc
she was there was a justice democrats i
was following them i supported them
they put aoc in power
uh and there was this whole idea oh
we're going to take over the democratic
party what happened i mean
she sold out played ball with nancy
pelosi the party these parties
themselves have a corrupting influence
trump but you thought they were real
though you thought aoc was a real
socialist revolutionary no i didn't
think she was a revolutionary but i did
think she was going to be part of like a
populist wave that was going to take
over the democrats because she was part
of the justice democrats
and
now it was a different situation back
then in 2017 2018 it was a totally
different it's not like how it is now it
sounds absurd now but it made sense back
then
just like trump did to a lot of people
yeah yeah trump trump promised people he
was going to
be against the wars and he was going to
put america first and he was going to
you know have infrastructure and bring
all the jobs but he made all these
promises and what happened he had to
capitulate to the republican
establishment
we allow ourselves to be ruled by
politicians though so aoc was always a
politician right
that's the thing we i no one knew who
she was she was just like she was just
somebody that the justice democrats
propped up she said she was a
working-class woman from the bronx
and that's how i viewed her as well at
the time i didn't i didn't see her
history in politics or anything
and then what do you know it turns out
that the democrat being in the
democratic party because look if you're
in a party in the democratic or
republican party
you will have to make sacrifices
for the collective well-being of the
party as a whole and not if you reject
the parties not if you truly are
revolutionary and you're anticipating
then you're going to get kicked out or
you're going to get that
doesn't that still do so say worst case
scenario yeah you get kicked out and
shamed and all this don't you think
people are going to be attracted to that
because they saw someone who was really
anti-system like putting himself out
there
yes yeah but but the thing is is that
these parties are now rigged to make it
so that people can't even get to that
point
they'll rig it against you so
you won't even have a fit you won't even
be able look because look if you want to
rise in these parties you have to use
their resources if you want to use their
resources
to become more prominent than you than
you are
then you have to bow down to the the
parties
yeah you can't use their reasons once
once again if it's anti-system and
revolutionary you're not using their
resources you you're
here's a question i have for you what
happens in a few years
or whatever
when the two-party system
breaks down by itself wouldn't you think
it was short-sighted for you not to
do that hey you know what
43 fucking years old i'm growing old
waiting for that to happen so
i'm i'm running short on patience of
waiting for that to happen i don't think
it's gonna happen it's it's gonna happen
because
there is
never before in american history except
during periods of
new parties emerging into prominence has
there been such a profound political
realignment in regards to the formal
parties that exist
like we have a republican and democratic
party
but what
i mean they are so fundamentally divided
and there's so many different rivaling
interests within those parties what
meaningfully unites them now
the republicans and democrats
yeah respectively what meaningfully
unites them foreign wars
uh pulled out of afghanistan
and he was being attacked from the left
in his party for doing that because it
was like for how he did it that that's
how they're yeah he was being attacked
from the left and from the right and
although i mean
i think he's bombing in somalia and i
think he even did bombings and
yeah so i mean
it's
they always agree on the things that are
worse for us essentially that's usually
banker bailouts
foreign wars stuff like that so usually
when i see republicans and democrats
agreeing i know it's going to be bad for
us pretty much yeah i mean um what i'm
just trying to say is that
um so what if that doesn't happen though
what if you're getting older well here's
the issue there was a populist wave in
2016 yeah with bernie and trump
the parties ha that was a virus within
both parties both parties got the
vaccine against this virus so what now
now it's time for real people outside of
bernie and trump to step up and take
revolutionary ideas you're not going to
do it it has to come from the working
class it has to come from the working
cloud we can't remember intellectuals we
can't
keep relying on these same people that
fail us over i agree but it's not gonna
come from the parties
see i think you need to use the vehicle
maybe okay we disagree on this but i
think you need to use the vehicles that
exist i i don't think a third party is
an option and if the only way it's an
option is you're waiting for this state
uh to wither away amongst itself with
each other
that um
to me that's just waiting on in a
miracle waiting on something that might
not come in our lifetimes so
and and for the record a lot of people
saying red brown whatever listen
that's a question of etiology that's a
question of our view of history
concretely speaking there are not any
communists and there are not any
fascists yet in america that's my view
you have populous and you have
uh establishment people and the populace
have different ideas amongst themselves
some ideas i oppose and will argue
against
but let's not uh
i think it helps either of your causes
to
fall under either one of those labels
with communism or fascism
i honestly now that
i understand what like i'm doing what
the risk i'm going to take and all that
i really wish wish these terms would
just disappear because they do nothing
but people stuck in their dogmatism to
where it's like yes i'm at this people
yeah i wish i would have just spoke
about the beliefs
instead of like promoting a history and
all of this because yeah it really gets
in the way uh with speaking with people
because that term and it's like i can't
be associated that term i'm sure with
has two people say oh he's a communist i
can't be associated with that term so
those terms which
are in the past are still dividing us
today to where
uh you know you say red brown alliance
yeah if you have people that are
collective that are national and that
want a better future for their country
and are anti-liberal
they should be figuring out ways how do
we manifest this into reality what do we
do but instead you'll see on uh haaz's
side a whole bunch of little clicks
fighting each other then you'll see on
the other side same thing whole bunch of
little clicks online fighting each other
over these terms and titles and that so
yeah these terms i think
just get in the way of anything
productive so for me um
i think there is a lasting
significance decisive significance for
marxism leninism but i think marxist
leninist and the west are cartesians and
what that means is that
they
think that marxism leninism itself
creates its own object
when in fact the object has always been
something that preceded us so in russia
russia had a populist movement a
revolutionary movement lenin came and
said we marxists will be
the best leaders and the only way this
movement that already existed will
succeed
just like how in america the object is
the populist anti-establishment
forces
and when i say i'm a marxist leninist
i'm not saying
i want everyone to
agree with me ideologically i'm saying
that
i believe we marxist leninists have the
most to offer
to see to the ultimate victory of uh
american popular interests and the
interests of the american people and
the anti-establishment interests
generally whether you want to look at
that from the perspective of like
you know occupy or
you know you know
the
populism of 2016 it's all the same you
know there there is an objective
see that the the point of marxism has
always been there's an objective class
struggle it's not a subjective
struggle it's not the struggle between
marxism and foreign ideologies it's a
class struggle and marxism is supposed
to be a tool that is
best equipped to serve
the working class and then ultimately
serve the people as a whole
so the aim and the object
to me is objective it's not ideological
or subjective
okay um so we're gonna get to some of
these questions because we have a lot um
and some of these names i'm gonna
there's no way i'm gonna be able to
pronounce them but okay
okay so um from zoltan
said so well sherman
eugen
during that song can you bring the
questions up no they're too far back um
well welch mers
eugene
during
w-e-l-t-s
c-h-m-e-r-z eugene during i think that's
what it is accuses marxism of being
utopian because it's based on
destruction like oswald spengler
impression socialism thoughts from ct
and then has
yeah well i've always argued marx was
great at criticism bad at solutions so
that's been my belief yeah
um
i actually
think the destruction relevant to marx
and marxism has happened multiple times
you had the crisis in 1929 you had the
crisis in 73 of there all of these
i think we uh
what to me is so advanced about chinese
marxism is it allows you to take a more
cyclical view
of this cycle of destruction and rebirth
so i don't think it's a utopian
eschatological vision of a final
destruction
systemic breakdowns and social
revolutions should be used viewed uh
almost like uh k waves like the contra
country of whatever cycles
if you know what that is they should be
viewed as waves not uh eschatologically
okay um again consultant i know schleck
is checked slovakia
um specifically checked um land you had
a pretty strong group that wanted to
unify with germany led by alfred brunner
and early nazi theorist in the german
socialist party
i don't know if that's even though it
doesn't sound like a question though i
think he's just making a comment
so from sun state uh fascism is
capitalism and decay
don't show that fascist book on my
capitalism my capitalist platform
they'll ban me okay
and neon nora
has uh sultan already proved the ussr
was funded by western capital
the entire time no communist has been
able to debunk him
i think you're muted you're muted
oh can i briefly address both of those
things sure yeah the first thing about
this business of being on a capitalist
platform i'm sure you want me to be just
like an anonymous loser like you who
doesn't make a difference whatsoever
um but that's not going to be the case
i don't know what the difference between
a capitalist or social i guess you're
saying what we're not in power yet so we
can't seek power
uh what a stupid thing to say the second
thing you just said that the soviet
union was funded by capitalists is an
abject fucking lie the lie comes from uh
sutton's work about wall street finance
the bolshevik revolution which is a
complete fabrication wall street in fact
we know financed
at first the karensky government but
would go on to later finance the white
counter-revolution
during the russian civil war the
bolsheviks uh were had no foreign
support um at that time so
that's actually one of the next
questions from sun state says what does
haas think about the bolsheviks being
funded by american banks and the german
government at the time
there was no funding by the american
banks it's a complete fabrication again
the only source that they can give us is
uh sutton's work
which is bullshit
it's not it hasn't if you look at the
primary sources he has nothing it's only
rumors and hearsay about trotsky was in
new york and met with someone and
whatever and even even if that was true
we all know that trotsky was never
himself a bolshevik
so yeah and trotsky admitted to that
yeah yeah he got financial aid
he well
i don't i i i mean the only thing we
know
historically is that germany
sent lenin on that train because yeah
germany had an interest to do that but
that wasn't german capitalist that was
the german
government which was engaged in war
against um
russia the russian empire at the time
so it's not much of a conspiracy is
you know i i think um sutton at least he
was speaking about um olive oshberg who
was a jp morgan agent who was the first
um
general manager
of the roscomm bank i think that's where
they tie in those
accusations but there's there's no
connection there's a there's no actual
verifiable connection where when in fact
we can verify the connection between
uh international financiers and
industrialists and capitalists to the
white count revolution
so i mean
it's really on the surface like if the
bolsheviks were being supported by wall
street why did every major power on
planet earth
invade russia to prop up
the white counter revolution it doesn't
make any sense
from pasho zero
ct seems uneducated on all the
historical events he's evoked thus far
my only question is what he thinks about
the labor aristocracy
the what the labor aristocracy
i have no idea all right i'll move on um
from sun state morally champion
championing
the two greatest historical champions of
colonialism britain and france against
germany that's interesting lol
okay
well that's where this falls apart is
yeah the biggest capitalist
uh no one forced germany to
invade the ussr in 1941.
um
the ussr
entered into an alliance with
england and america
because they had the germans as their
common enemy as soon as the war ended
you can see
they had nothing in common beyond that
and yet again why did that's the
question why did germany have to invade
the ussr i mean what so the ussr should
have allowed itself to be conquered by
uh
i mean had the ussr dog piled on in
maybe your argument would have merit but
that's not what happened the ussr
minded its own business and it just was
on in a way that was unprovoked was
invaded by germany so
you know what hitler thought would
happen
he thought
the western powers
would stop the war on him
and view the bolsheviks as the bigger
power he's such an anglophile that he
thought that would come as a result to
that obviously it didn't play out like
that at all
from zoltan he said germans should have
blitzed the anglos harder
okay
from jimbo ddd has what's your opinion
on the us len lease to the soviet union
they gave the soviets 14 000 planes and
thirteen thousand tanks as well as two
point seven tons of petrol yeah this
this is a common uh historical myth that
has routinely been debunked the lend
lease overwhelmingly benefited britain
the soviet union got breadcrumbs in
comparison that were nowhere near
uh decisive uh compared to soviets
uh domestic industry
um i think that maybe the soviets did
make use of american jeeps and
the most of all the jeeps that they used
those but as far as planes and tanks
were concerned nope the bulk of that was
soviet domestic made that whatever the
americans provided was not
in decisive at all so
from the sun state germany wasn't
practicing self-defense knowing all the
world's capitalist and communist powers
were set against them
well what evidence did the germans have
that the ussr was going to invade
uh germany there was no such uh
evidence
hitler was very i mean look
this would be a debate
if it wasn't literally all out in the
open that hitler believed
that the germans had the right to
conquer the so-called inferior slavic
races
um
and that these were sub-human people and
that
um yeah i mean like it's so plain
like
i i don't know what to say i mean i
guess i would just say read what hitler
himself said
and spoke about in speeches
um from neon nor
has why did china change their
constitution to allow bloc to allow
black rock to take over their mutual
fund biz
um
we i will i don't know what you're
talking about specifically um
but that stands that all land in china
is owned by
the government
whether that's the central government or
local governments
all land is owned by the government so
that's china's uh real estate
policy at its foundation
um from zoltan he said just bring up
otto ernst remar a nazi being funded by
the ussr in west germany he also sold
arms to castro and was an advisor to
nassar
okay
from punish italian we are waiting um we
are waiting time on history which will
always be a stalemate talk about the
actual ideas corporatism and nationalism
as effective socialism
okay
tyler durden for both are communism
fascism democratic how is leadership
determined
um so i'll just answer for my sake
communists ultimately do believe
uh
communists don't think democracy the
concept of democracy is sacred but
democracy does correspond to communism
if by democracy we mean
a people's state ruled by the people um
of the people by the people for the
people yes now does that have to take
the form of a direct electoral democracy
of the central leader
no i mean that wasn't the case
historically but elections are a useful
tool to determine
what kind of leaders people want
especially at local levels
there's a huge electoral system within
china both for the people's government
and um
the communist party it's just there's
nothing sacred about it in and of itself
but uh it depends on what's meant by
democracy if what's meant by democracy
is um
american pluralistic multi-polar
liberalism of course not no
yeah i'd say true democracy comes with
the people supporting of a leader an
idea
and it's the truest form not being
brainwashed by television and going to
vote on red or blue
okay
um from sun state
how many peasants died in mao's great
leap forward has
um a great deal many people died
during the great leap forward but these
are the premises of industrial modernity
as a whole and when you're in um
engaging in industrial modernity from
scratch
the result is you're
pretty much fucking with people with how
people have uh fed themselves for like
hundreds and maybe even thousands of
years
yeah that is going to lead to some kind
of crisis and whatever and i should
point out the great leap forward was not
simply um
because the west wasn't going to invest
in china at the time
it's also because the so uh china didn't
uh mao didn't want to be reliant upon
soviet industrial system he wanted to
create an
indigenous chinese industrialization
so
that was the price for it
hopefully i mean in the future i think
communists should be committed to
learning the mistakes of both the great
famines
and
i think with china
china's path now
china has freed communists globally from
ever having to do that again because
china
itself has already accumulated a great
concentration of capital which it can
use to help
the development of other countries so
that they don't have to do this
from zoltan this is from the 1933
fascist rocco corporatism laws
it the trans if the transfer of control
of capital from shareholders to the
workers of the company
[Music]
um zoltan
there's like 19 books that argue china
is a corporatist state and you and you
even have keith woods video the rapid
industrialization is actually very
similar
to bismarck's state socialism growth
reforms
i actually think uh comparison to like
bismarck or even japan in the 19th
century
is way more accurate than fascism but i
still think it's a wrong comparison but
it's i guess it's more uh
accurate to compare it to bismarck
bismarck's reforms
well they have a regional uh corporatist
system there now regional like not not
by occupation
so it's it's unique in that sense
something that could work in america
with the state identities but it's
definitely a corporatist system
well i mean
corporatism has a specific historical
connotation it's like you can i don't
know if you can call it corporatist
national syndicalist then i mean if
corporatism is national syndrome i mean
i mean to say how is china corporatist
in a sense like for example a lot of
things can be called a corporate if a
corporate merely means like maybe an
hegel sense
some kind of synthesis between the state
and civil society i mean yeah every
country has that you know
it's more like off of
let's say a guild system and they have
30 guilds set up by regional districts
that control those districts all
controlled by the state above it but
they take care of their work and how you
tell who's doing the best is by what
they produce and how they're doing so
it's a competition amongst people would
you say like a cold clothes as a
corporate
you'd have to explain it for me yeah
like a collective farm
no no no i wouldn't because uh the
collective farm who has to say in the
collective farm because from like
what i've heard those were messes and a
lot of people didn't even have a chance
to eat their own food they grew well
there but the difference was is that
there were decentralized like there were
many different collective farms with
varying degrees of success and
performance and they even kind of
competed with each other in a sense
so
that would be i guess like that when you
talk about they compete with each other
and they're their own brackets that
would be a form of a syndicalist setup
uh but i just know everyone went away
like as um as you said as even i think
the issue with calling it syndicalist is
because you have to understand the
historical
meaning of the syndicate is the unions
that had existed at that time
that were already in place
so it's a specific historical context
yeah well corporatism all evol guild
syndicates national cynicalism
corporatism right they all kind of
matured much like uh the communist
countries
learned hey we can't do the community
farms we can't do central planning we
need to adapt our socialism and you know
once again socialism uh you know with
the chinese spirit right they had to add
their own thing to it and that's kind of
how the corporations came about too with
guild systems then people were fighting
for syndicates then national syndicism
came around i don't know to me that the
chinese system is too interlaced at all
levels too interlaced at all levels for
there to be a discrete corporate i can
identify
uh but it's broken up into regional
corporations so i mean i don't know i
mean it's not just the horizontal
breaking up there's vertical
it's all interconnected everything is uh
what that's what corporatism is
interconnected they're not that's the
whole point of it i mean to say like
where is the specific corporate
in china like what would be an example
of a corporates
the regions the regions of china so
are those the governments in the
specific regions
or
yeah the government oversees every like
you said it's it's in just like under
third position corporatism the
capitalist exists i i think it's only
it's more it's
it's more complex than that because
like
the the way in which for example the re
the economy of the regions and the
economy nationwide how all that is
coordinated with the central government
it's just more complex i don't know if
corporatism would be accurate
well that's how it's broken up into
corporations um
i'll link you this video in the private
and you can watch it on your own time
and maybe
we'll have another talk about it
where it's breaking down
uh how
china has adapted to regional
corporatism
is that the uh keith woods video no no
no no this is from a chinese economist
that's in china
and um he was explaining
how they went off of this no i i
wouldn't
send you something
uh directly from what they're talking
about
okay so from zoltan
so what would infrared say about the
three different factions in the ccp who
you schmidt one of them specifically has
been arguing china is a fascist state
internally for a year now
i i am not aware
there is no faction within the ccp that
calls china a fascist state there are
wacky intellectuals within china that
talk about china as a fascist state it's
an imperial state it's a monarchy
all sorts of things from the imagination
regarding the newfound interest in carl
schmitto
uh i don't see
the german conservative revolution as
inherently fascist actually
the thinkers of the german conservative
revolution had a very
uh
mixed relationship to german fascism and
italian fascism
i think it's important to separate these
two phenomena because
a german conservative revolution to me
was much more deep than that it wasn't
just uh
about fascism specifically it was about
a more broad reevaluation between of uh
the relationship between uh modernity
and uh tradition and so on and so on
um
it's almost like the timing
so fascism emerged at the same time as
the conservative revolution but they're
not the same
does that matter that much to where if
china is learning from conservative
authoritarian germans or if they're
learning from like gentile like to you
would that like make them not communist
anymore or of course of course not of
course not i mean uh people are dogmatic
about it
one of the greatest
influences on my thinking
intellectually is heidegger
of course politically heidegger i'm
completely opposed to his political
decision
uh
to be in the nazi party but
there's way more to his thinking than
just that same is true for all the other
conservative revolution thinkers
who i'm pretty sure influenced uh
a lot of different people you know it's
not just
you know i don't like the dog but that's
what i find with
especially speaking to marxists yeah i
mean like for example when it comes to
gentilly i don't just say oh he's a
fascist so he's wrong i have a specific
criticism you know it's not it's your
materialist right that's your criticism
yeah yeah yeah well i mean that's right
even when that's even a moot point
that's yeah yeah we know we're going to
disagree on that
so from western artifact
haas why do you think buzzwords like
establishment win the debate point is
point is who was the better system your
argument isn't proving quality
well the problem is that
you
view political realities like a
minecrafter and you view political
realities like uh
some kind of like reddit nerd who thinks
they're like designing blueprints and
comparing abstract systems but the
reality is
we have establishments we have
established
insular
stagnant
ruling class that is all interconnected
with each other
that
mingle with one another and subsist on
the basis of established that's the key
word established institutions
um as and then we contrast an
establishment with the people because
whereas an establishment is what's
already established
the people contain potentialities that
are not yet
established or actualized
so it's you know if you just used your
common sense and didn't treat politics
like a
minecrafter it would make a lot of sense
uh but you insist on being a nerd and
wasting my time so
um from sermon
i'm 40 minutes behind he says that china
doesn't invade countries china has birth
tourism that has their people
as their people have children and sapien
um and then
that was like one and then he listed
number two is china takes over farms and
markets and small countries like oceania
um etc forcing the indigenous population
into wage slavery
if that's true
i have to look at the specific case case
by case if that's true
it's not because china's invading anyone
it's because the governments of those
countries are not giving proper
representation to their people and
that's not china's fault unless you want
china to
invade countries and engage in nation
building
which is not something it'll ever be
committed to doing so it sounds like
you're you're complaining that china
isn't america china doesn't want to
overthrow governments and and make
people have good governments it's almost
like china will just do business with
whatever government is in place because
it's not their business it's the
business of the people living in that
country
what about china and australia though i
mean they're using the best taste it's
the best case because to buy out a
country and then kind of turn it into
yeah well well that's their right that's
imperialism though that's why
it's not imperialism because that's the
australian liberal free market system if
australia doesn't want that
system of course china will respect them
china will respect the people who stand
up and say you know we we want to
protect our people's interests china
will respect that but why should china
respect
uh australia when australia will allow
it i mean if australia is going to allow
it they may as well and and moreover
i mean
australia
and is part of the american anglo-saxon
system
and these same countries the five eyes
alliance are always lecturing and you
know being smug to china about how their
system is so much better so okay china
will say if your system is so much
better then you should have no qualms
with us buying your property
and it's you still have your superior
liberal system we're not forcing you to
do anything we're doing it in the free
market
that's that it's not china's fault it's
how is it their problem so as long as
the governments are willing to pretty
much sell out their future for immediate
bang for their buck but it's it whose
fault is that is this china's fault or
is this the australian government's
fault it's this it's the business of the
australian people what kind of
government they have yeah i i view it as
power politics but it's just
i don't i do see it as economic
imperialism though i mean i'm not even
morally saying it's good
well here here's what would make it
economic imperialism it would be
economic imperialism if china for
example
um
was orchestrating coups and
political interventions to keep the
australian government propped up much
like how france
continues to do this in west africa
and how america does this and britain
and america do this for the whole world
and latin america and so on and so on
that would be economic imperialism but
if as a result of australia's existing
laws and its existing government
china finds certain opportunities
i mean it's it's like
how do you blame china for that china is
not imperative it's not saying to blame
like i'm not moralizing yeah i look at
his power politics but yeah we're just
saying it's it's a form of imperialism
like not moralizing it it's just it's
not it's not imperialist because uh
that's the superior liberal uh
anglo-saxon uh free system
and that's the freedom that they want
and they have so
all right so we're going to do a
two-minute closing statement so um ct
you want to go first
uh yeah interesting conversation i wish
we could have got more into the today's
stuff
and uh where we differ but
has
didn't seem like he's interested in
politics at all outside of
um
the people's party was that the party
you said the third party
whatever real uh third party can emerge
then it will have my interest but i
think that's the one i think for now
which seems to be the most promising but
maybe it won't be and maybe something
else will come around and um maybe it
might be an individual or something
i don't know all right we have to see
yeah
so i would just say check out the
platform people on
newfrontierusa.org
see what people are running on i would
put that platform up against
any other party or any other person out
there
creating a platform to run for position
if people are concerned with
collectivism and socialism and
nationalism and having a reason i would
definitely check out that platform and
see it for yourself and support it um it
was a good chat i i enjoyed it
um
thanks haas for the conversation maybe
we'll have it again
sure um
yeah uh like i said it's mainly a
question of ideology and history which
is not necessarily to be confused
for
uh even though it's often interrelated
with the current concrete political
realities
uh so this is the point upon which we
disagree primarily
um
now this something i do want to address
was that
i
was taken by surprise because you know
obviously it wasn't your fault because
you didn't know
but
because of twitch's strict policies or
whatever and a lot of people in the chat
right now were celebrating like i ran
away from the debate and all i was too
scared to debate and i just want to say
to you people specifically
what do you have to say now bitches
like you really look stupid now don't
you you look dumb as fuck
um and i really continued this debate
mostly out of pettiness just because i
wanted to
despite those people you know like
everybody else with the chat
yeah
oh my god you pay a lot of attention to
the chats i see yeah
he gets mad at them it's funny
um all right so thank you guys both for
coming on we uh so our discord has been
shut down twice in one week so we are in
the process of kind of figuring out we
have a vip discord for people that we
trust that won't get us shut down
we're waiting to make a public one but i
just did drop the link tree in the chat
and we have um we did make a telegram
and
some gilded thing that we're working on
as well because there's just a lot of
people trying to get a shutdown so
that's that um follow us on twitter
though that's where you can find like
any of our stuff when we do get shut
down on platforms um tomorrow night we
are going to be back at 9pm eastern with
a debate on whether or not the press is
the enemy of the people so yeah that is
about all for that and um
check that link to the video has in your
private chat before you get out yeah
yeah for sure yeah so todd you got
anything before we close
no thank you very much i do appreciate
you both for gentlemen thank you
okay yeah see you later all right